The government and media could have been more curious about the arguments of corona skeptics. Many of those skeptics were average Dutch people with ‘understandable questions and concerns’.
This is the conclusion of the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) in the study ‘Sceptical views in the corona debate’ that is published today. The SCP states that it is important that critical people ‘do not completely lose their confidence in the government’. Therefore, the government should not exclude them, but try to understand their motives and concerns. “It starts with being and staying curious,” says researcher Joep Schaper. “That you don’t immediately see people with a different opinion as extreme, but look for their underlying concerns.” Fellow researcher Claudia Hartman adds: “Many people are not necessarily concerned that the government always what they suggest. But they do feel heard and taken seriously.”
Part of the research was a survey among more than 2800 people. About 20 percent of them turned out to have serious doubts about at least three parts of the corona policy, including the government’s intentions when imposing the lockdowns. People are most skeptical about the information provided by the manufacturers of the corona vaccines. “25 percent doubt whether that information is correct,” say SCP researchers Joep Schaper and Claudia Hartman. A very small percentage, about 3 percent, thinks that not the Netherlands, but global institutions such as the WEF (World Economic Forum) or the WHO (UN health organization) are pulling the strings.
Are corona skeptics a different group than the Dutch who question corona policy less?
Schaper: “We looked at whether there were differences in mental health, in how many different media people used or in experiences with the corona virus. There were no such differences. The coronaskeptic people are a very diverse group of people, who do have in common that they have a low trust in the government.
Hartman: ,,We also conducted in-depth interviews with 24 people. In it we heard that some people had that mistrust for a long time, but that it only really dawned on others during the pandemic. People who state that they always thought that the government had their best interests at heart, but that their eyes have been opened during corona. And, they say, they now look at many dossiers with different eyes, such as the nitrogen debate.”
Their posts on social media were removed, if they went to demonstrate they faced the police and those around them saw them as ‘wappies’. That created isolation.”
They also often felt isolated. How did that happen?
Schaper: ,,That didn’t happen overnight. But some skeptical people said they were not getting any real answers to their questions, either from the government or from the media. So they started doing their own research, often with understandable questions and concerns. But their posts on social media were removed, if they went to demonstrate they faced the police and those around them saw them as ‘wappies’. That created isolation.”
Hartman: ,,The government communicated a lot during the pandemic, but some of the people we spoke to had the feeling that people were mainly talking about them instead of with them. Minister Hugo de Jonge’s statement in the Senate that ‘we know where the unvaccinated live by zip code’ was often reflected in the conversations. Naturally, people who already have the image of a repressive government are chafed by this. The main thing is that you, as the government, clearly explain how you arrived at certain considerations. What are the advantages and what are the disadvantages? Show that there are also different opinions within the government.”
The coverage of the four largest Dutch daily newspapers, including this newspaper, about corona skeptics was also examined. What is your conclusion?
Schaper: ,,It was noticeable in most reports that a conflict was often set up. There was certainly attention for the skeptical thoughts about corona. But if a critical source was cited, the newspapers often wrote that those facts were incorrect or that it was a conspiracy theory.
If something isn’t right, isn’t it the media’s job to write that it isn’t right?
Schaper: ,,It is very difficult to deal with this, certainly. Because 30 percent of the respondents also say that the media gave too much space to corona skeptics. But we think it would be good not only to state that a claim is incorrect, but also to explain why that is the case.”
Free unlimited access to Showbytes? Which can!
Log in or create an account and don’t miss a thing of the stars.